A little late, one might think. While he had numerous golden opportunities and the most high-profile platforms available, Pope Francis said little or nothing about pseudo-sodo-marriage or the rising persecution in this country, save for some bland, nebulous statements regarding religious liberty (which could have been the erroneous secular understanding of same, for all we know). But on the flight back from North America to Rome sweet Rome, Pope Francis finally gave a sterling, powerful, full-throated defense of those who, in conscience, simply cannot go along with the sexular pagan agenda and specifically, perform government functions that require them to pretend that two people of the same sex can be married. Hallelujah! We’re saved:

On the flight back to Rome, he was asked if he supported individuals, including government officials, who refuse to abide by some laws, such as issuing marriage licenses to gays.

“Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right,” Francis said…..

“I can’t have in mind all cases that can exist about conscientious objection but, yes, I can say that conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right,” he said, speaking in Italian.

“And if someone does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right,” he added.

Francis said conscientious objection had to be respected in legal structures. “Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying: ‘This right has merit, this one does not.'”

WOW! Couldn’t be clearer, could it?!? In fact, I’m quite certain this is the first whopping step that will see the steady roll back – nay, complete crushing – of the forces of sodomy in the world at large! I mean what possible rejoinder could there be to “Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure” and “And if someone does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right.” I understand ARCUS and New Ways Ministry are considering shutting down after this clear, unequivocal condemnation of sodomy and bold assertion of the Truth and rights of the Church as revealed by God Almighty. Heck, they’ve probably closed up shop already.

The Pope just utterly blew away the moral relativism of the satanic left by pointing it out to them in the last sentence. I’m sure they are even now in sackcloth and ashes, bewailing the fact that their “might makes right” modus operandi has now been exposed for all the world to see.

OK……I’m being a bit smart. But sorry, this is way too little and way too late. Instead of pointing to conscientious objection, Pope Francis could have just as easily, and much more powerfully, said that objection to pseudo-sodo-marriage and all the rest is an absolute right because it is founded in the Truth, while this fake marriage and all the other atrocities are evil and morally wrong. But instead he basically begged permission for some to be excused from the sexular pagan zeitgeist. It is rather nice that he at least recognizes that what the sexular left proposes is a structure entirely based on marxist power dynamics (power = right/morality), but his language is again so nebulous and weak that a) the point evades most people and b) it fails to condemn it in the stark terms demanded by the severity of the situation.

Context also comes into play. The same words said in front of Congress would have had a lot more impact than on the flight home to Rome, almost while running away, as it were. Throughout the 10 day visit to both the US and Cuba, Pope Francis had any number of golden opportunities to really strike blows in favor of the Church, the Truth, and the good of souls, but, a few relatively innocuous exceptions aside, singularly failed to do so. He seemed much more interested in stressing his political program (which happens to align with the desires of the self-anointed, false* elite in both countries) and in not making any serious waves against the global powers that be. It was quite the opposite of visits from PBXVI and PSJPII, both of whom, at least periodically, would afflict the powerful of the world. But I don’t think too many are surprised by this at this point.

And, if you really didn’t get it V-G = Victory over Gay, like V-J for Victory over Japan

* – I have no animus against an elite in any society, properly understood and construed. I wouldn’t say I’m a monarchist or a devotee of an aristocratic system, per se’, but I do believe there is a proper role for an elite in any society, be it the Church, a locality, a nation, or the world. But such elites must be dedicated, and this is critical, to the assertion of the common good, which can only be rightly done in concert with revealed Truth, that is, the Doctrine of the Faith. The vast majority of self-anointed elites today – and they do anoint themselves, whether it be by riches, media presence, media stardom, or academic credentials – not only do very little for the common good (their self-promoting PR stunts aside), but work for the positive derangement of the moral order and the promotion of what is best for souls. They are, by and large, thoroughgoing promoters of the lies of the world, the flesh, and the devil, and are not at all deserving of our respect or admiration, nor their self-anointed roles as society’s “betters” and arbiters of cultural standards.

Cardinal Daneels, Msgr. Pinto, Cardinal Kasper, and others who so stridently opposed the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI, even at times rejecting his Magisterial statements (or at least casting doubt on them), are suddenly emerging as great proponents of total, absolute obedience to the Holy See. Father John Hunwicke notes the dichotomy and, even more, the estrangement of hyper-montanism from the right practice of the Faith:

One Pinto, Dean of the Roman Rota, has apparently claimed that “The Jubilee Year of Mercy expects this sign of humble obedience (on the part of the Church’s shepherds) to the Spirit who speaks to them through Francis”.

Oh dear. Here we go again. That dreadful old 1860s and 1960s-style maximalising view of the Papacy once more … against which both Newman and Ratzinger in turn, in their respective contexts, wrote so sensibly……..

I find it hard to reconcile Pinto’s idiotic teaching with the wise words of the First Vatican Council, which so admirably limited the role of the Roman Pontiff thus: “The Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of Peter so that by His revelation they might make new teaching public, but so that, by His assistence, they might devoutly guard and faithfully set forth the revelation handed down through the Apostles; i.e. the Deposit of Faith”.

Believe it or not, I first formally subscribed the dogmas of Vatican I half a century ago, when I was an uppity little fellow in my mid-teens, barely out of short trousers. I have no intention of abandoning those sound teachings now, and least of all at the behest of some canonist of whom (happily) I know nothing. Indeed, a life-time of living with this subject has left me never more convinced of the correctness of Pastor aeternus than I am now. What a shame that it is now so unfashionable in the upper echelons of the Vatican itself.

Vox Cantoris has more:

Why do people continue to ascribe more power to the Pope and more authority than he has?……

The First Vatican Council prescribed the Infallibility of the Pope. We can’t tell Protestants what to think but for heaven’s sake, can Catholics at least come to understand that the Infallibility of the Pope is a control on his power not an absolute grant of it?

“The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law. On the contrary: the Pope’s ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He must not proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God’s Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism.”

Our dear Benedict XVI said the above during his homily as he took the Chair at the Lateran as Bishop of Rome. He also said in response on Bavarian television that the Holy Spirit picks the Pope:

“I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. … I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined. There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!“

Indeed, if the Holy Spirit “picks” the Pope, then free will is something that can be conditionally lifted? I think a knowledge of the history of the papacy is the strongest argument against both the idea that the Holy Spirit somehow invades the minds and souls of the cardinal-electors and guides their hands to arrive at a certain, pre-determined choice. I think the above can occur, if there happens to be a particularly holy group of cardinals who cooperate with grace, but God doesn’t force their hand. Sometimes, there can be extraordinary interventions, such as that by Emperor Franz Josef of the Austro-Hungarian Empire during the conclave of 1903 that resulted in the election of Pope St. Pius X that could be interpreted as acts of God, too. But again, just because something can happen, doesn’t mean it always does.

I was kind of shocked in the wake of the election of Pope Francis when a traditional priest or two opined that his election was a clear expression of the Holy Ghost and we had better just go along with this revelation. I actually asked one of them whether and how free will gets trumped in such cases and I got no response.

I personally think – and I hope this isn’t some latent protestantism talking – that the tendency towards ultramontanism run amok is one of the most serious problems that has faced the Church in the past century-plus. I think it’s unbalanced the Church and led to these wild swings from one pontificate to the next. But the danger in that is arrogating to ourselves who meets sufficient standard of adherence to that Doctrine. Even though I recognize the danger, I feel compelled to judge a pontiff’s actions by that standard, and pray fervently that I am doing so not in accordance with my own will, but in accord with revelation as I best understand it.

Of course, the signal achievement of the modernists is the mass experience of exactly this kind of mass confusion and division. The devil works in the gray areas, and all of that.

The Vatican announced today that Pope Francis has appointed Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, metropolitan archbishop of Bologna, and Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, as members of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints.

Maybe giving Cardinal Burke a bunch of free time was found to not be such a good thing after all? Did his removal from the Roman Rota have anything to do with the “reform” of the annulment process? Is this all part of some Machiavellian plot, or is it now certain proof that every critic of Pope Francis has been horribly uncharitable and wrong, wrong, wrong? Is this an answer to prayers, or could it be a response to increasing “conservative” concern/criticism of this pontificate?

I guess the main question is whether this act is truly significant or just part of the regular shuffling of curial cardinals? Do you think it has some broader meaning?

I’m just glad to see Cardinal Burke “back,” as it were. I pray his presence in a non-ceremonial office can exert substantial positive influence on his brother cardinals and the Vatican bureaucracy, at large.

Congregation is not the same as Congregation. Each has its tasks, which have some weighty influence on the management of world church than others. The reassignment from one congregation to another, as in the case of Cardinal Burke, can therefore be seen as diesempowering, while maintaining integration.

I think that’s true. Congregation for the Causes of the Saints is a sure step up from the Order of Malta but it is not an organization involved much in the day to day administration of the Church. It’s important, to be sure, but not nearly so influential as the Apostolic Signatura (Burke’s former post), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or the Congregation for Divine Worship. It’s nice to see, to be sure, but will keep Burke out of the main decision-making avenues of Church administration. He’s still very much sidelined.

From the biography of Saint Rose of Lima by Sister Mary Alphonsus O.SS.R., a tale of men saved from desperate straits by their devotion to Our Lady (all images taken from New Liturgical Movement. They show the Basilica of Our Lady of the Rosary/Convent of Santo Domingo in Lima) :

In November, 1605, a strange procession made its way from the city gate of Lima, Peru to the Calle de Santo Domingo, passing the home of Rose Flores and entering the Church of St. Dominic where our Saint so often prayed. It was led by a tall man with a well nourished look. He was clad in rough animal skins; his beard was long and his hair streamed behind him as he walked. He carried a cross formed of two timber beams, coarse and unplaned. Behind him walked his ten followers dressed in the same way, their skin blackened by exposure to the sun. Unlike thier leader, they were emaciated and showed signs of great fatigue. They had come on foot from Callao [the major port serving Lima, perhaps 20 miles away at that time] to thank Our Lady of the Rosary for their deliverance from a deserted island.

Who were these Robinson Crusoes and how did they find themselves stranded? They were passengers from a ship which had hit calm weather and, with provisions almost depleted, had been carried to an island. The eleven men had offered to go ashore to search for food and water. Armed with a few weapons, they had braved the wild, only to find that the island contained nothing but jungle. There were a few berries and fruit trees, but no other food.

The adventurers cut their way back to the shore to report their findings, only to see the ship disappearing in the distance. The wind had shifted as soon as they went ashore and the captain had put out from the island. There were abandoned.

For two years they eked out a painful existence on the island, living in constant danger of death. Besides the savage beasts, they had hunger and storm and sun as their tormentors. They were devoured by insects, maddened by monotony and inaction. Only one among them never lost hope. This was the corpulent man with the streaming locks who now led their procession. He was Martin Barravenido, a native of Fuente del Maestre in Extremadura [a hard land that trained many hard men, like Hernan Cortes and Francisco Pizarro] . A man of firm faith and practical wisdom, he had refused to give up his hold on life. He was devoted to Mary and her Rosary; in this he put his trust. If he continued to pray for deliverance, she would not fail him.

Little by little, he had restored the spirits of most of his companions. On that deserted island they knelt each day and prayed before a crude wooden cross which Barravenido had made. At last, one joyful day as they peered at the horizon, they saw the sails of a ship. It sighted their signals and approached them rapidly. In delirious jubilation they shouted and waved. But one of them was on his knees, weeping his thanks to Our Lady. It was the Feast of the Most Holy Rosary, 1605.

At Barravenido’s urging the men had made a vow. If Our Lady delivered them, they would make a pilgrimage of thanksgiving to her chapel of the Rosary in St. Dominic’s Church, Lima. It was this vow that they now fulfilled as they plodded to Lima from Callao. Exhausted as they were by two years of frightful malnutrition, they had wished to make this gesture of gratitude to Mary.

That their pilgrimage would draw all eyes upon them had been farthest from their minds. But even at the seaport they saw that such was the case. People had flocked from Lima to welcome them. As they passed, people knelt and recited the Rosary with tears of devotion. It was as good as a mission. All Lima and Callao seemed to press them into St. Dominic’s; what had been meant as a private visit by eleven men had become a fiesta. Thousands of rosaries were recited that day before the miraculous statue. Our Lady and the Infant Jesus showered graces on their clients; the confessionals were full and long lines of penitents waited to be absolved.

Rose, who had prepared the altar of Our Lady that morning with special love, felt an inexpressible joy as she joined the throng in prayer in the chapel which was her charge…….

On the following day Rose met Martin Barravenido when he came again to Our Lady’s chapel of the Rosary. She was just finishing her sacristy work when Brother Martin de Porres [Can you imagine having not one, but two such Saints in a city at the same time?!? Lima had about 22,000 people at this time. But it was more than two. The Archbishop of Lima of that time, Toribio de Mogrovejo, is also canonized. Such was the faith of many Spaniards during that heroic age.] brought him to meet her. With accents rich in emotion, the grateful man retold his story…….

“And now, what do you think I should do to repay my debts of thanks for this favor?” he asked Rose.

“I do not know,” she answered softly. Then her eyes flashed. “A whole lifetime would not be enough!” she added with feeling.

“That is what I have been thinking,” he said. “And Brother Martin is of the same opinion. May I ask your prayers for my intention?”……..

………Rose said the promised prayers and practiced patience, but she did not have to wait long to learn their issue. Only three weeks later the middle-aged Barravenido had taken his place among the lay brother novices at Holy Rosary. It was a courageous act, one worthy of so generous a soul. Through the years of his postulancy and novitiate Rose saw him seldom, but as soon as he was professed he was made porter of the convent with Brother Martin. It was a strange coincidence that threw them together in their work, for both were “fray Martin.” He and Martin de Porres became fast friends. His humble, simple piety won the admiration of Martin de Porres, who often related to Rose conversations which he had had with Barravenido.

————-End Quote———–

So there is no particular hook to end this story. We don’t know the fate of the other 10 men. We can presume that Martin Barravenido died in the odor of sanctity if he was so highly regarded by Saint Martin de Porres. The saving of those men from such desperate straits seems a clear miracle of Our Lady’s intercession to me. I think that is sufficient story in and of itself, as was the outpouring of Grace into the lives of the people of Lima who shared in that miraculous event.

I think the point is this: devotion to Our Lady, piety, striving for sanctity are always rewarded by God. Not always so visibly as in this case, but God gives us richly, sometimes in ways we don’t expect or even want. I think this, also: the man who led the prayers that resulted in the rescue gave a proper thanksgiving in devoting his life even more to God and His Church than he had previously. A reminder there for us to perhaps be even more thankful to God for all the myriad benefits and graces He bestows on us so constantly, and which we (if you are anything like me) so often fail to recognize. It is easy to become so focused on the crisis in the Church and the (generally) small problems of our lives that we lose sight of the big picture of God’s great largess to us his fallen creatures. Pious examples like this help remind me to always have great thanks in my heart to God for our Church, my conversion, my family, and so much else.

A couple items of note that aren’t specifically Church-related but worth acknowledging nonetheless.

First up, a new study shows that almost all temperature data gathered in the US in support of “global warming” temperature models (to predict future temperatures under the dread influence of “climate change) has either been manipulated or is drawn from estimates. Since the US data makes up almost half of all data used in these models, the manipulation of data has caused models to predict far higher temperature rises than would show otherwise, since the data-fudging has involved lowering temps prior to 1965 and increasing those since:

We have written many times about the fact that the temperature data used in the alarmists’ global warming models are not original data as measured by thermometers. Rather, they are “adjusted” numbers, consistently changed to make the past look cooler and the present warmer, so that more billions of dollars will flow from the world’s governments to the climate alarmists who serve government’s cause. This is, in my opinion, the greatest scandal in the history of science.

This article at Watts Up With That? adds incrementally to that picture. John Goetz analyzes the U.S. temperature data that finds its way into “official” tabulations. This is particularly important because, while the U.S. represents only 6.6% of the total land area of Earth, we account for close to half of the data relied on by the Global Historical Climatology Network. This is a big topic, and you should study the Goetz article in its entirety if you have time. I am still digesting it.

But a few highlights are obvious. First, Goetz finds that approximately 92% (or even more, depending on how you calculate it) of US surface temperature data consists of estimated or altered values. Very little raw data finds its way into the warmists’ climate models–which, of course, is the way they want it. Second, the adjustments that are made to the U.S. data consistently skew the numbers as we have described many times before–they try to make the present look warmer, compared with the past.

Charts and other relevant info at the link above.

Secondly, a series of medical studies have purported to show that exposure to “endocrine-disrupting” chemicals may be significant factors in the vast increase in obesity and diabetes in recent decades. I know we have some medical professionals that read this blog, so perhaps they could chime in, but I am torn on this report. I think there is likely some presently unacknowledged causal agent in the extremely rapid increase in obesity, especially in the developed world, over and above our sedentary lifestyles, fast food, superabundance of donuts, and the like, but at the same time, medical research has generally embarrassed itself over the past several decades in constantly giving out contradictory advice: eggs are terrible for you, no, they’re good, butter will kill you like a shot to the head, eat margarine, no, margarine is poison!, etc.

So make what you will of this:

Known EDCs include bisphenol A (BPA) found in food can linings and cash register receipts, phthalates found in plastics and cosmetics, flame retardants and pesticides. The chemicals are so common that nearly every person on Earth has been exposed to one or more.

“The evidence is more definitive than ever before – EDCs disrupt hormones in a manner that harms human health,” said Andrea C. Gore, Professor and Vacek Chair of Pharmacology at the University of Texas at Austin [heh] and chair of the task force that developed the statement. “Hundreds of studies are pointing to the same conclusion, whether they are long-term epidemiological studies in human, basic research in animals and cells, or research into groups of people with known occupational exposure to specific chemicals.”

The threat is particularly great when unborn children are exposed to EDCs. Animal studies found that exposure to even tiny amounts of EDCs during the prenatal period can trigger obesity later in life. Similarly, animal studies found that some EDCs directly target beta and alpha cells in the pancreas, fat cells, and liver cells. This can lead to insulin resistance and an overabundance of the hormone insulin in the body – risk factors for Type 2 diabetes.

Epidemiological studies of EDC exposure in humans also point to an association with obesity and diabetes, although the research design did not allow scientists to determine causality. The research offers insights into factors driving the rising rates of obesity and diabetes. About 35 percent of American adults are obese, and more than 29 million Americans have diabetes, according to the Society’s Endocrine Facts and Figures report.

I was going to lead a Rosary rally on October 10 at some still undetermined location, but I’ve since learned that there will be a prayer vigil outside the Planned Barrenhood mill in south Dallas on the same day. Rather than compete with each other, I thought it would make sense to just pray outside the mill. The prayer vigil/protest will take place on Saturday October 10 from 9a – 11a at the surgical abortuary on West Virginia drive (map). This is part of a nationwide series of protests against Planned Murderhood on that date.

Since I’m sure the Rosary will be prayed at the protest, this accomplishes the Rosary rally’s goal. I hope to see many of you out there, about 200 showed up at the last protest in August, but the weather should be cooler, so there is even more reason to go!

I plan to have more announcements as the date nears. TFP sent me a very nice banner that will certainly tie in the upcoming anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima with this effort so dear to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart. I think I might also start using it in the men’s vigils. The next men’s vigil will be Wednesday October 8.

I pray I see you there.

UPDATE: A local pro-life leader wanted me to share an important bit of information with you. Planned Barrenhood, always seeking to maximize profits, has changed its mode of operation in the wake of HB2. Since they are now required to operate their abortuaries along the same standards as other ambulatory surgery centers, meaning much higher standards of cleanliness, more staff, and much more expense, than existed in pre-HB2 mills in this state, they are only running their abortion mega-center in Dallas three days a week (and sometimes less). They are using their non-surgical abortion locations in the DFW area to perform many tasks formerly performed at the mill itself – required counseling, “doctor” consultation, sonogram, etc – at these various other, non-abortion facilities. The patients only go to the abortuary for their actual abortion, everything else has been done in advance. This of course allows them to minimize costs at the abortion center while also insuring those who show up for their abortion have already gone through the whole process and are likely to follow through with the murder of their child.

What this means is that it would be very helpful for pro-lifers to step up their presence outside their other facilities in the DFW area. There are many, many of these locations, as this link shows. There are 9 total Planned Murderhood non-abortion offices in the metroplex. The abortuary is only open Thurs-Sat. This also allows Planned Butcherhood to shuttle the declining number of abortionists around to their various abattoirs on different days of the week.